Alright, I love reading good writing as much as the next person, especially when it comes to insights to film criticism, and Derek thought it'd be a good idea to have a thread to discuss all critics.
Quote from: In another thread, IRoeper's taste, like his personality, is something I've found to be rather immature. Not to mention, he's rather loud-mouthed. I like Ebert's more subdued, mature tone. Ebert has honed his taste over years, and I've found it to be one of the most consistent and reasonable things around. There are very few movies I disagree with him about, and, as has been said before, even when I do disagree, he always explains where he's coming from quite well. The WHAS review shouldn't be held against him. He was in a bad movie, sick of it, and simply conjured up a send-up to that old familiar camp song. Like I said, it was quite creative even if it dragged on a bit.
Roger Ebert is the best critic to have ever lived. This may seem like an exaggeration to some, but I'm dead serious. He just has so much insight into every movie he sees, his writing is beautiful, he's well spoken, and a great personality to boot.
Richard Roeper is a young loud-mouth who I don't know why he has been put with Ebert. Sometimes he has these good things to say, but he's just too hyper and bombastic for me.
Gene Siskel was a great man, and I truly miss not being able to watch him spar with Ebert more. It's too bad he didn't write as many reviews; I don't think I've ever actually read anything of his, but to see him talk was always great.
Pauline Kael is verbose, egotistical, grumpy, and brilliant all at once. The thing is, also, you can never predict what films she'll like or loathe. And you'll probably hate her at least once for dumping on a movie you love or praising something you deem filth. I say her prose needs to be whittled down, but if you can get past the bloatedness and dig in to her works, she has more complex insight than anyone else ever has. She truly reads into films and puts things in there that you can never tell if the director even intended them. And whether that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen. I have her book For Keeps, and saw Afterglow in hardback in a bookstore I was in recently, and some of the things she said as she was getting sicker were still just as poignant and insightful as ever. She even had some good things to say about Paul Thomas Anderson, and was quick to dump on Kubrick and the Scorsese of the nineties.
James Berardinelli is an online critic with a somewhat boring taste in films and a bad case of Attention Deficit Disorder. He usually gives the most depressing films the best marks, and if any film goes over 1:30 and he doesn't think it's perfect, he finds some justification to complain that it's too long. Still, though, his reviews are interesting to read, even if you don't agree with them. Crazily enough, he has a book coming out soon, a compilation of his reviews. His website is http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/
And last, but not least,
Jay Sherman (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=2444). Best fictional critic ever. ;) He thinks everything "stinks," and to a snobbish British film
The Tea Cozy, he gave "...his highest rating: seven out of ten." Brilliant. :-D
I'd also like to hear other opinions on other critics who I haven't really read much of. I remember hearing
Stanley Kaufman mentioned. Also:
Rex Reed (feh),
Gene Shalit (hilarious man whose reviews are poetic and to the point),
Joyce Kulhalwit (sp?) (the crazy bitch who argued with Ebert about Magnolia's brilliance),
Leonard Maltin, and more, of course.
joyce kulhawik is a fucking idiot.
wasnt this locked? ohmygod... ive finally lost it!
I'm the one who talks about Stanley Kauffmann. He's my favorite critic and writer of the movies. Not because I always agree with him, but that I find him the most insightful and hardest to disagree with in reason. He's been a film critic since the late 50s for The New Republic and uncharasticerally, he started reviewing films during his 40s. Before that, he was a book editor and reviewed books. During his career, his major claim to fame was from the major disagreements he had with Pauline Kael during the 60s. He became notoriously known as the "unKael". During his film review career, he has also been a theatre critic and again, a book critic. He's the most likely to give a bad review on a generally accepted movie. He was unimpressed with the Godfather movies, didn't like Nashville and disliked most films Jean Luc Godard made. He still reviews every week in his old age. He's 87 and still is just as tough in his reviews. Ebert says he is the best critic working right now and very frequently quotes something he had said when writing his own reviews.
~rougerum
I do think the way Roeper acts is idiotic, but the fact is he does have good taste in movies. At least, IMO. But Ebert is kind of idiotic too. If you've ever seen them on a talk show you'll know that they make total asses out of themselves. Ebert did a lame rodney dangerfeild impression on The Tonight Show.
But my big problem with Ebert is that he's pretentious. His top ten lists consist of artsy movies that I'll likely never see. And his #1 films latley, Jesus Christ. Everything post Fargo is just..wrong. Eve's Bayou, Dark City, Monster's Ball, WTF? I honestly think he's gone insane.
Now look at Roeper's lists. They're full of good movies people generally have seen. And the best movies on Ebert's list are on his, anyway.
Then there's Siskel. He's the best of all 3. Why'd he have to go and die? The thing is- he knew good movies. Well made, enjoyable movies. It took balls to put movies like Die Hard 2, The Fly, Wayne's World, and Under Seige on his lists. Not to mention Kubrick greats like Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange which Ebert gave thumbs down to.
Of course...this is all just my opinion. :) I was judging by the movies they thought were good, but the movies they thought were BAD, well that's a different story. I'm not saying I hate Ebert, he does rate movies well....it's just that he's so goddamn insane.
My list info is just from memory from seeing them on websites so if some could find a site with their lists so people could judge for themselves that would be great.
I think I have arthritis now...
I think Kaufman is a negative, bullheaded ass, who can't appreciate a good film. Rip on A Clockwork Orange, Roma, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, etc... seriously, what movies DOES this guy like?
Quote from: SoNowThenI think Kaufman is a negative, bullheaded ass, who can't appreciate a good film. Rip on A Clockwork Orange, Roma, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, etc... seriously, what movies DOES this guy like?
Read his reviews? Or did you just read somewhere about his general dislike for those movies? Trust me, from someone who disagrees with you a lot, he has a lot of good points and is very rightful in thinking they are wrong. Even Ebert thinks he is the best and considers the last two films you mentioned two of the best films ever made. Just about every single movie on Ebert's top ten list from last year was given a negative review by him.
And what does he like? Recently, he applauded Capturing the Friedmans. He liked All The Real Girls a lot and gave The Pianist an extra long review commmenting on how good it was.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetTrust me, from someone who disagrees with you a lot, he has a lot of good points and is very rightful in thinking they are wrong.
I don't understand what this means, GT.
Yeah, I read his reviews on all the films I mentioned. There was this book of his at the co-op where I was doing auditions, and since I heard you talk about him, I decided to pick it up and flip through it. After reading about 6 reviews of films I consider to be the greatest shining example of amazing filmmaking, and seeing him run them all to the ground, I had to put the thing down because I was raging mad. I don't like Stanley Kaufman.
You keep bringing up books. See, he's the problem: different mediums do different things better. Or at least in different ways. I don't believe somebody with a pedigree in novels and theater should be reviewing films. Both stage and novel are about the written word. Movies are about telling stories with pictures. That said, the way a novel conveys ideas is through the use of exposition. The way a movie does it is generally through a lack of exposition -- the audience is forced through logic to put the pieces together and fill in the gaps. This is why Kubrick was such a genius.
I don't believe there are any great film critics because they aren't actual filmmakers. They're outsiders. They look at a finished product and try to determine its intent. An actual filmmaker is going to be more insightful because they understand through first hand experience why that filmmaker might have made those choices -- or why the studio might have forced those changes. Critics too often blame everything on the director as if the finished film is purely the result of his/her effort. This is a serious problem because film criticism is based around the incorrect concept of the auteur. Remember, it was Bazin and Sarris who incorrectly wrote about the auteur theory, not actual filmmakers. It was an idiotic theory without basis, because there hadn't been many director films mid century. Most of what we'd seen were studio pictures. When I saw Steven Spielberg at Lincoln Center last fall he was adamant that in professional filmmaking he saw no evidence of the auteur theory. It's a collaborative process, he said, and offered to share the stage with his writers. Only when a director is handling multiple facets can the term even remotely apply -- such as Soderbergh editing and photographing his films, or the Coens writing and editing.
Leonard Maltin is a pop-critic (like a pop-star, but a critic instead)... forget just writing, he has to do tv bits, radio bits, books... not to mention he whores himself out to interview people for DVDs and (back in the day) VHSs (star wars vhs, etc.). He probably told his mom when he was younger "people are going to consider me a movie god one day... although i will almost never take sides and never have a view on anything, i'll be loved by everyone who loves movies... i'll become an authority and make lots of money by just talking about of my ass)... please don't tell me he's seen EVERY single movie in his guides... that's just impossible.
Nick
nyc,
For the first paragraph, I understand where you are coming from in differences between the mediums. The main problem though is that you are bringing upon assumptions of a man based on the fact he was also a theatre and novel critic as well and that he looked to film in how it conformed to the first two. You aren't giving any examples by him specifically to his being wrong at all. Though he was critics of the other two, it is my opinion he saw film for what it was. In the other thread, Mesh said something about how the movies dramatize situations to the highest effect they can. I agreed with Mesh and found those words also to come from Kauffmann as well. You can disagree with Kauffmann if you want to, but try to disagree with what he says.
Well, thing is though, some critics have turned into filmmakers. French New Wave brought this no doubt and the filmmaker of Deterrence and The Contender started out as a critic. Also, the filmmaker of Run Lola Run and Heaven, reviewed Punch Drunk Love for a German newspaper. To say they are a critic and can't come to an understanding of the film medium and the problems filmmakers can come under is wrong to say in the general. Also, it is wrong to assume every critic went by the auteur theory. Nowhere near all did. Kael fought it. And to further my original point, Kauffmann never agreed with it either. He always said filmmaking was too collaborative and wide reaching to be reduced to something so simple. He did say, though, that he learned from it.
~rougerum
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: The Gold TrumpetTrust me, from someone who disagrees with you a lot, he has a lot of good points and is very rightful in thinking they are wrong.
I don't understand what this means, GT.Quote
It just means he reviewed the films with reasons so what he said was at least with merit. I disagree with you all the time, but at least I attempt to explain myself so it doesn't become a matter of "You're dumb" and that, but we can agree to disagree.
~rougerum
par usual, Mutinyco, we disagree. Auteur Theory is my mantra. Not so much in the incarnation that Bazin and Truffaut started, but more along the lines that Sarris continued in the US. A writer/director who has final cut is most certainly the author of his film, and the film becomes the star. Of course Speilberg would shit-talk auteurism -- he's probably pissed that he's never included when people talk about the great 70's American auteurs. It's a fairly floaty theory, I realize, but Director-as-author (in many of its incarnations) represent all that is good and pure about film. IMO, anyway.
But you and GT have approached something good here, together: I can value a critical opinion much higher when it comes from one who has made films. That's why Godard criticism from '59-'63 is so great. And I guess Ebert should count, he was a screenwriter...
Quote from: SoNowThenBut you and GT have approached something good here, together: I can value a critical opinion much higher when it comes from one who has made films. That's why Godard criticism from '59-'63 is so great. And I guess Ebert should count, he was a screenwriter...
That doesn't make sense, though. How is a man of higher intelligence to review a film when he has also made films? For me, in general, I think it gives the man a better opinion to understanding the restraints in making a film, but in no way indicates anything about intelligence in giving an opinion on the quality or merits of a film. I think, simply, that anyone can give as much as a qualified or intellectual opinion on a movie as anyone else given what he actually says in his opinion. Its all in what they say. And to base a theory on higher intelligence for opinions on films to the person being involved in movies or not, that resides in a lot of people that, in my opinion, have made some pretty bad films.
~rougerum
I do everything on my films. Write, storyboard, photograph, edit, produce, direct... I still don't believe in the auteur theory. In fact, a lot of the members of the French New Wave admitted that their writing was merely a way to get them in position to direct their own films. And as for Kael, under the assumption that she had distain for the auteur theory, why then was she such a proponent of "personal films"? Why did she praise the director above all else? Why did she declare The Sugarland Express to be one of the most phenomenal debuts in the history of filmmaking? Again, there's nothing wrong with Spielberg. If you know anything about the process of filmmaking it's a FACT that the auteur theory doesn't hold water. Most filmmakers don't support it. It's without merit. I think the criticisms against Spielberg are misdirected at best. Take out your anger on Ron Howard or Michael Bay -- 2 directors without any shame. SS is the real deal.
And as somebody who knows his share of critics, I can assure you how out of touch they are with the process.
Well, I'm a film critic so I think I can relate to this thread. Here's my scoop on others...
Roger Ebert - great, insightful
Leonard Maltin - good, sometimes insanely wrong
Joyce Kulhawik - worst critic I know
Gene Siskel - wonderful, R.I.P
Joel Siegel - fair, perhaps too forgiving
Gene Shalit - fair, perhaps too hard
Richard Roeper - really good, sometimes funny also
Elvis Mitchell - smart, legit
Stephen Holden - terrific
A.O. Scott - decent
Well, nyc, I'm not arguing with you on the auteur theory - I don't believe in it. Neither does the man I was defending, Kauffmann, either. Its not a staple of what it is to be a critic.
~rougerum
I think it is, whether conscious or not. Most film critics ultimately return to the director to assign guilt or success.
I'm a film critic, sort of, and I do it because writing about film helps me gain a better understanding of it, which in turn hopefully will help me be a better writer and director.
Although it didn't really work for Rod Lurie.
Quote from: mutinycoI think it is, whether conscious or not. Most film critics ultimately return to the director to assign guilt or success.
Then to the ones not directly believing in the autuer theory, what does it matter? Considering you are also a critic, what does it say about you? Me, personally, I disagree with the auteur theory and that every film critic unfairly uses it without thinking it. But me disagreeing with the autuer theory just means I don't see it as the best theory. It doesn't apply that I am of better means to analyzing than another at all. Its just a stupid theory.
~rougerum
long live the auteur theory
taking projects out of total control of the director is to kill film
that said, I think the only way auteurism works is to have 50% of films made by committee. It's both sides of the coin of filmmaking. Half deeply personal films, half assembled commercial projects. Both can be good, or shit.
and I could care less which directors/critics disagree with the theory. it's been the central thing i've identified with in making film, even before i had heard of it. it was a feeling. the director is god, and the film is the star. everybody else involved must serve these two. that's how i wanna make films. you don't agree, then do it your own way.
mutinyco: "If you know anything about the process of filmmaking it's a FACT that the auteur theory doesn't hold water."
??? hehehehe.... you should be a film school teacher. they're good at making final statements about what filmmaking is supposed to be. that's about the only thing...
mutinyco, PTA is an auteur. I guess all his movies suck ass, huh?
First of all, you aren't reading what I've written. I'm not a critic. Don't consider myself one. I'll occasionally write a review, but that's only if the site's normal critic hasn't seen something. I prefer doing press interviews and writing essays. My statement about the auteur theory isn't some dogmatic statement, but a realistic observation. Filmmaking is a collaborative process. Yes, in many cases the director has more control than in others. But he acts more as a conductor than a composer. Note the difference. As for PT Anderson, I consider him a writer/director. That's all he can take credit for because that's all he actually does. He supervises other aspects to make sure they're in line with what he wants, but ask ANY professional filmmaker and they'll start gushing about their collaborators -- in PT's case Robert Elswit and Jon Brion, among others. Those are the people who actually realize the film. Where would Scorsese be without Thelma Schoonmaker or Spielberg without Janusz Kaminski and John Williams or the Coens without Roger Deakins...David Lynch without Mary Sweeney...and on and on...
OF COURSE. Auteur theory (well, my incarnation anyway) should never discredit any of the collaborators. Never. You will not find another person who has more respect for DP's, focus pullers, gaffers, set decorators, etc, than me. I love these people. But final decisions must be made with the director's full approval. And he should be responsible in picking all the above people. The bad thing about the whole auteur business is that everyone has a different definition of what it is. It's like all great film terms (mise en scene, anybody?) -- they are barely graspable, or completely malleable by everyone who wants to throw them out there. I don't care if you don't wanna use/work with the theory, but you can't discredit it, because it's one of the central film ideas of modern filmmaking.
Oh -- I also almost forgot to add one of the more important ideas that I associate with auteurism, and that's the point of tracing through a director's entire body of work to see a common and constantly evolving thread of themes/ideas that obviously have a very personal meaning with that certain director. Certainly Kubrick and Scorsese are two great examples of men who worked in many genres, yet you can always tell it's one of their films within 5 minutes of watching, and not just because of visual style, but with narrative choices and the ideas at play. This is consistent through all their works, in some cases working better, in some just average. But that spine, that through line of their careers... I didn't wanna not mention that. It's essential. ANd I think we can all agree it's definitely there for all the greats.
Of course it's there. Of course different filmmakers have their own style. But what about somebody like Jerry Bruckheimer? Isn't he an auteur? He doesn't direct, but he damn well controls his productions and oversees every single aspect. He, too, has a distinct style.
The auteur theory came into existence 50 or so years after the birth of cinema. Yes, early on there were what we might call auteurs...DW Griffith, Chaplin... But most productions were of studio assembly. It's an ideal, but actually represents a fraction of a fraction of overall filmmaking and it can't be considered to any great degree accurate of the whole. It's the whole that counts, not any one individual piece. That was Eisenstein's basic conceit in relating filmmaking/montage with Communism. A film is made by many people. For instance, is somebody like David Fincher an auteur? He often retains final cut and his films have a distinct look and feel, both visually and thematically. But he doesn't write his films. Doesn't shoot them. Edit them. Score them. So can he genuinely take credit for it as say...A Film by David Fincher? The Writers Guild has been battling Hollywood for years to eliminate that type of credit toward the director -- unless the director has also written it. They contend that the film began as the work of the writer.
As for mise en scene, it does have an actual definition. It was originally a stage term applying to "what's in the scene" or what's onstage as a part of the scene. In film terms that corresponds to what's in the camera's frame. It's not a generalized term for atmosphere, but a specific reference to the details of what we are seeing at any given moment. That's why I think Welles and Kubrick were so great -- they were genuinely directing SCENES, not SHOTS.
Ah yes, but you give your definition of mise en scene, or what it was when it was coined. But these great film terms are evolving with the times. Before, a simple mise en scene might have been the movement of the actors in frame, along with the angle of the shot, and that's it (silent film). Now it can incorporate CGI, etc. But some people only take the mise en scene to be what was there at the time of shooting. Others believe it should be completely separated from editing, while still others believe that the terms must be married together to get a picture of film proper.
As to Bruckheimer -- it could very well be argued that he is, in fact, an auteur. Because his personal vision definitely does pour out of every film he makes, and his stamp is on every facet of the production.
I don't think the meaning has changed. A meaning is a meaning. If something differs from it coin a new term. I don't believe mise en scene defines whether it has to be in the camera at the time of filming. It's what's in your frame. Lots of movies have used special effects to add elements from the very beginning. Even Citizen Kane. What about old time matte paintings? I don't feel there's a valid argument to alter the meaning. It doesn't matter whether something is CGI or not.
Let me pose it this way, do cartoons have mise en scene? There's nothing live action. But the filmmakers/animators pay great attention to the details of every shot. It's what's in the frame -- what you're seeing at any given moment.
Argue much?
All I'm saying is that you say it's "what you see in the frame". I'm not disputing this. But I've read many film books and countless essays that talk of mise en scene, and each give a slightly different definition. Generally, it's the same idea, but each focuses on something a little different. That's why I kinda love all these pretentious film terms, because they are just ambiguous enough to be thrown around for many different things. That's all.
Same can be said for auteur theory. That's the point I was trying to make before.
burp.
indeed
Man... most of those mentioned i like, but the one that i find that I ALWAYS agree w/ would be Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine. He is amazing
Yeah, I agree, Travers is pretty cool. He gives some great commentary on the Reservoir Dogs dvd.
Quote from: mutinycoMovies are about telling stories with pictures.
I would say that movies use every kind of art to tell their stories: photography, music, design, acting...
If ever I feel like putting myself in a bad mood, all I have to do is read a David Denby review in the New Yorker. This snotty fuck takes such pleasure in ripping apart films--I have never read one entirely positive review from him. I believe that a film critic should be, above all else, an appreciator--this is why I find Ebert so refreshing.
Quote from: ksmcIf ever I feel like putting myself in a bad mood, all I have to do is read a David Denby review in the New Yorker. This snotty fuck takes such pleasure in ripping apart films--I have never read one entirely positive review from him. I believe that a film critic should be, above all else, an appreciator--this is why I find Ebert so refreshing.
Cheers. So true.
I'm an 85% believer in the auteur theory, myself.
I require sublimity from my film writing. Newspaper and television reviewers are just that; hopelessly middlebrow personalities like Ebert, Roeper, Maltin, and Shalit aren't real critics, they're merely reviewers, and not very interesting ones. Where are their credentials? Where is their voice? Even if they had a deep, distinctive voice (which I doubt), their medium inherently doesn't allow for such things. To further my point, I refuse to call myself a "critic," either; my newspaper and blog writing are "reviewing," however hard I try to make them something more than superficial recountings of plot and character.
Pauline Kael, however "grumpy" she may seem to some, was an absolutely brilliant writer. She was very literate, very immersed in film, very witty, and very opinionated, and she never bothered to disguise any of these facts. I guess that intimidates some readers. I've always found her to be immensely accessible and, despite disagreeing with many more of her opinions than I share, a real inspiration. The New Yorker's current crop could never compare; they're actually rather limp, for the most part. I am not a huge Anthony Lane fan, to put it mildly. The best film reviews in print these days are to be found in The Village Voice and Film Comment; they're not ashamed to take film seriously, something that's under attack so commonly now as "elitism." Any system of taste is a form of "elitism," everyone. Don't be upset when someone's system of taste is well-developed enough to form a basis for criticism.
I knew I could count on SoNowThen to drop Sarris, another really valuable film critic, into the conversation.
Nobody's mentioned James Agee, who also did some really good work and prefigured the others mentioned.
Godard, whose film criticism consisted not only of his writing but also of his actual films, probably has to be considered the consummate film critic; he lived it.
Susan Sontag's film writing is always beautifully perceptive and enriching. I consider her an important film writer. Also, in the seventies and eighties, Thomas Waugh and Laura Mulvey.
Um, yes, movies are stories told with pictures. 24 per second, to be exact. You don't need actors. Or music. Or set design. All you need is a story and camera with film. (editing tools can help) But fundamentally the base of the medium is telling a story with pictures. It's the first thing any decent film teacher will tell you.
Godardian, as always, a very good post. Cheers.
Muty - why you gotta argue so much? Nowadays, film DOES encompass all art forms. That's what makes it so great and powerful and wonderful and fall-in-love-with-it cool. You could choose to tell story with just pictures, but why leave so many other tools on the ground? We've progressed beyond the silent film, let's keep moving forward.
amen
Because I'm talking about what fundamentally makes a movie. It is a story told with pictures. Yes, you can add all of these other mediums into it -- and this is why it's the greatest art form -- but if you can't tell a story with pictures these other things aren't going to help. Telling a story with pictures IS a movie. It is the foundation. You can't have anything without it.
Once again, the auteur theory is bogus. I don't know of a single major filmmaker who would sanely declare anything else. US directors mourn the loss of "personal films" -- that doesn't mean auteur per se. It's a collaborative effort. The director doesn't think everything up. Specialists come to him with their ideas and he tells them what works or doesn't. He's a conductor. Yes, movies that are overseen to a certain extent by one creative force are usually better. But they can also be a lot worse. I prefer total control over my work. But I'm an exception. There are MAYBE half a dozen directors in Hollywood who have COMPLETE control over every film they make.
When Spielberg says he doesn't believe in the auteur theory he isn't stating it as a point of philosophy. He's stating an observation he's made by working for 30 years. He says he sees no evidence of it in feature filmmaking. He said that as a kid making 16mm movies he was an auteur. If you want to just make $100,000 movies with a couple of people you'll be more of an auteur. But if you want to make movies with real budgets you're going to have to learn how to compromise -- there are too many collaborators and too many investors and too many studio execs.
I would fit easily into your definition of an auteur. I still don't see any convincing evidence of it on a reasonable scale.
Is the auteur theory largely touted by film historians, critics, and the like? Do only the most egotistical of directors call themselves "auteurs"?
Would any of you say that a select few can truly be considered auteurs?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
"I believe somewhat in the autuer theory, but I don't think one guy can make an entire film."
-Kevin Smith
The Auteur theory is way over-defined. People just take the definition too far.
There are Auteurs... people who make all the creative decisions.
Auteur just means author... people who write books still have a fucking editor and a fucking publisher, publicist, and use Word Perfect, but they're still the author of the book, they wrote the thing, they are the creative force behind it.
As far as critics go... fuck 'em really. There aren't any really great critics.
There needs to be a medium between people like Peter Travers who likes just about any piece of shit film he sees and probably takes bribes for his reviews and Pauline Kael who was too engrossed in keeping her image as a snobby over-critical critic to really enjoy film.
i think the argument about auteur theory has gone somewhat awry here. the cahiers critics blasted hollywood films in creating auteur theory. it was never meant as an observational statement of the hollywood filmmaking process. big-budget hollywood films are most definitely collaborative efforts; they are also, in large part, shit. auteur theory was a mandate, not an observation. the cahiers du cinema critics were calling for directors to portray their artistic vision through their films, in the same way that an author portrays his/her artistic vision through his/her books. entertainment is a collaborative effort, and if your goal is to make movies whose only purpose is to entertain, then you had better be damn good at working with others. when studio execs are pumping millions into a film, they don't want all of that money resting on the decisions of a single individual. (by the way, i like a little hollywood entertainment from time to time, don't get me wrong.) but if you are interested in creating art, the filmic equivalent of literature or painting, then you are interested in an individualistic pursuit, that while relying on the performance of others (actors, gaffers, etc...), is ultimately dependant on the decisions and guidance of one individual: the director. this is why in New Wave, and indeed many of today's foreign films, you see the director credited as director of mise en scene. the director decides what ends up in the frame.
That's why the Cashiers crowd crowned Alfred Hitchcock king. And he certainly didn't make Hollywood entertainment...
i can't tell if you are trying to send me up here. (i hope not, because you've proven my point.)
Yes, I was sending you up. My comment was intended as ironic. Hitchcock was the ultimate Hollywood director. He's a gold cow.
Quote from: RegularKarateThere needs to be a medium between people like Peter Travers who likes just about any piece of shit film he sees and probably takes bribes for his reviews and Pauline Kael who was too engrossed in keeping her image as a snobby over-critical critic to really enjoy film.
His name would be Roger Ebert.
And yes, he is a
critic. If some of you who were criticizing Ebert ever read any number of his reviews you would see that he doesn't
just review movies, but he does very often
criticize and
critique them, like you say a "good critic" should do.
Well, I don't think Ebert fits that exactly, but he's certainly one of the more respectable critics. He does like films, but I think that more recently, he's lost his ability to tell a good film from a bad... probably done too many reviews... who knows.
Even though they focus too much on BO potential sometimes, the critics at Variety are actually pretty sharp. I don't always agree, often don't, but they do know their shit.
Movies are good. :)
Sometimes. :(
Quote from: mutinycoYes, I was sending you up. My comment was intended as ironic. Hitchcock was the ultimate Hollywood director. He's a gold cow.
hitchcock was most definitely not the ultimate hollywood director. hitchcock was the ultimate auteur. he held complete creative control over all of his films, and was one of the most meticulous directors ever in terms of planning and execution of shots. the reason the Cahiers critics crowned hitchcock king is because his films displayed a clear and coherent style throughout. the fact that his films did well at the box-office only adds punch to their argument: not only are auteur driven films a greater use of the potential of motion pictures, but they can also make money.
"tedg" is an interesting "average joe" type film critic who is anything but that. He's a fellow who posts comments to IMDb -- a lot of comments. The MIT e-mail address is a bit telling. He's a really cerebral guy, but has a lot of good insights, though some are stuff no one else has thought of, simply because he thinks too much, and at times can be a bit pretentious. He is also very discriminating, as he's said he only gives two 4/4 ratings per year. So 3/4 is pretty much high praise coming from him. He loves Greenaway, but I don't hold that against him; he also considers Welles and Kurosawa the two other best, and sees PTA's potential (though he didn't like PDL too much), which redeems him. Check him out (http://us.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?ur0643062).
Hitchcock WAS the ultimate Hollywood director. He DID NOT have complete control over all of his films. With David Selznick as producer the auteur proposition is ludicrous. In fact, I think he was little more than a visualist. He had no interest in directing actors -- note the story about him pulling up to a set in his limo, yelling, "Action," then asking the DP if the shot looked good -- when met with an affirmative he drove away. He loved preplanning and storyboarding. But his plots are God awful. Just like De Palma, he bent narrative logic to suit his visual ideas. He's quite simply the most overrated filmmaker in history.
How can you discredit Hitchcock as the auteur with the example of his relationship with Selznick? Their relationship of making films together only lasted for a short time and in many people's opinions, came as a period before Hitchcock got into his stride.
~rougerum
Quote from: mutinycoHitchcock WAS the ultimate Hollywood director. He DID NOT have complete control over all of his films. With David Selznick as producer the auteur proposition is ludicrous. In fact, I think he was little more than a visualist. He had no interest in directing actors -- note the story about him pulling up to a set in his limo, yelling, "Action," then asking the DP if the shot looked good -- when met with an affirmative he drove away. He loved preplanning and storyboarding. But his plots are God awful.
I want a source on this "limo" story.
And as for "no interest in directing actors", he felt that if he cast perfectly, then he didn't need to direct them. That's what he hired them for - to do their job and ACT. There are stories about his falling asleep on set, and such (never heard this limo one), but they really are just rumors and tall tales passed on. Interviews with actors who worked with him deny this. They do say he was described as sad on set because all the fun of making the film was done already. But not "no interest" in making the film? Bah!
"Plots are God awful"? Someone hold me back.
I'm siding big time with MacGuffin suspicisions brought on these accusations. I wasn't sure and didn't directly attack them because I wasn't sure, but I've heard nothing about these stories of 'limo' directing and such. Maybe an isolated incident at best, but it seems hard to believe considering everything I've read on the guy while directing suggests only the opposite. The only thing I remember of him actually being away from physically directing was when his health got poor and he had to rest often to just keep pace while the film couldn't wait for him. But, even for Hitchcock's age, that was very late into his career when judgement of him as a filmmaker was already established into history.
~rougeurm
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe only thing I remember of him actually being away from physically directing was when his health got poor and he had to rest often to just keep pace while the film couldn't wait for him. But, even for Hitchcock's age, that was very late into his career when judgement of him as a filmmaker was already established into history.
~rougeurm
That was on "Psycho". He had an illness that kept him away for few days. They scrapped that footage shot without him anyway because Hitchcock said that the way it was shot, it told the audience that Arbogast was going to be killed. It was the wrong POV.
I really don't have the energy for this one. But my question is this: What did Hitchcock do that made him an auteur that Spielberg doesn't do?
Hitchcock was a director not an auteur. A conductor not a composer.
mutinyco, previously, you commented in this trhead about how apparent it is when a critic will single out the director when putting blame to a movie. You used this an example that most critics are in belief of the autuer theory. I privately disagreed and figured it was for other reasons. Complements of the critic Stanley Kauffmann, I've found reason for that:
"When a critic says that 'Director Jones has done thus and such,' he knowshe may be speaking figuratively, that Jones may not be responsible for all defects or virtues, that the phrase 'Director Jones' is a convenience meaning 'Jones and those who affected work.'"
So, for the most part, critics use this term more in conveniance to keeping the text simple. I always figured it along the same lines of sort anyways. It just seems bad logic to believe all critics would think decision making was one guy in a major motion picture. Most general people even know it isn't.
~rougerum
Oh, I don't think that critics genuinely believe everything's the director's fault. But it's sort of like when people say they're "recovering Catholics"...no matter how far they try to get away from it, it's always going to be a part of who they are.
By the way, who's this director Jones? I haven't seen any of his films...
Quote from: RegularKarate... Peter Travers who likes just about any piece of shit film he sees and probably takes bribes for his reviews ...
just wondering why you do not like him ..i find him THE MEDIUM....b/c IMO he writes great reviews that are true,harsh, and sometime very funny...seems likea smart guy ...i believ he's not over-cheesed out like the hot-ticket critics and not as over-critical-analytical Pauline K........he fits in the middle to me evn though his reviews are found in the ..unfortunately commercialized put any thing on the cover to seel now-a-days rolling stone :roll: ....also (this is just me )....his yearly "top 10" is always on par w/ mine...????
I actually think that Richard Roeper is really very good. He does talk really fast on the show and sometimes a little too loud, but he was never originally a film critic and was forced to become one. I've talked to him several times and he's more relaxed in real life than he is on the show. In this 30 minute interview he's a little more calm and mature. Click on the link and play the interview called "Thumbs Up".
http://www.wnyc.com/arts/articles/13211
I like Roeper and the reason he seems more openly honest in appreciation of good Hollywood films and art films instead of one or the other. Ebert tends to shape some Hollywood films into higher meanings they aren't suppose to acquire. Roeper, in saying why he may like similiar movies, appreciates it on more honest terms. I disagree with Roeper a lot. I agree more with his criticisms than his likes. It must also be known that Ebert never intended to be a film critic either. He was already a fan and sorta got placed into writing for it.
~rougerum
That's true. Ebert started writing for a newspaper at the age of 15 but never reviewed movies. It wasn't until he was in college and started going to a local movie theatre that was old-fashioned and served coffee that he decided what movies could really be. At that theatre, he realized that movies (particularly the foreign films) were all works of art. After that, he wrote the first review ever for a Scorsese movie, became a critic and the rest is history.
I think the reason why so many people dislike Richard Roeper so much is because he's not Gene Siskel and because he didn't earn the position he's in. But that could have happened to any of the guest critics. People would say the same thing about Harry Knowles, Joyce Kulhawik or Elvis Mithchell. Roeper said himself that you're not going to get what Siskel & Ebert had. But Roeper says that he gives it his best shot on every show and if that's the truth, then that's all anybody could ask for.
Now, I love Ebert just as much as the next person but what really gets me is the attitude that Ebert seems to have toward Roeper. He treats Roeper like he is just the new co-host and only a replacement. And almost every opprotunity that Ebert gets, he brags about the fact that he is such an experienced and legendary critic and that Roeper is just some guy. I feel sorry for Roeper actually.
I'm sure Roeper had a clue going into it that he wasn't going to get the royal treatment and have Roger Ebert talk to him like Siskel. Because he's not Gene Siskel. Siskel was clearly a more passionate movie critic and Roeper is just a fellow columnist on the Sun-Times who happens to now see movies regularly now and criticizes them on Ebert's show. So if Roeper makes a dumb statement, if Ebert wants to talk him down (such as when asked Roeper if he ever wrote an NC-17 movie before like him) then by god, I think he can bloody well do so. You know why? Because he's Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper is just Richard Roeper.
Quote from: CinephileSo if Roeper makes a dumb statement, if Ebert wants to talk him down (such as when asked Roeper if he ever wrote an NC-17 movie before like him) then by god, I think he can bloody well do so. You know why? Because he's Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper is just Richard Roeper.
Do you recall what movie this was in reference to? Not Ebert's (Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, I'm assuming), but Roeper's.
Sadly, I really don't recall. I wish I did. :(
Well, you can always play a game and go up against Richard Roeper at...
http://zone.msn.com/outsmart/game.asp?EpisodeNum=204
I am really political about film critics....they will aways be hated and so on but i got the conclusion they dont know more or less than us (they are just luckier to be paid for do what we do in here for free)...they are really perjudice about actors, directors, say increduble stupidites and write certain things once and a while (like any other film geek does )....
The best thing is read, get happy or furious about the article and go check the movie no matter what...
I am really political about film critics....they will aways be hated and so on but i got the conclusion they dont know more or less than us (they are just luckier to be paid for do what we do in here for free)...they are really perjudice about actors, directors, say increduble stupidites and write certain things once and a while (like any other film geek does )....
The best thing is read, get happy or furious about the article and go check the movie no matter what...
well hands down the worst film critique show is MtV's movie house..Damn that show is stupid..Maybe I am being too anal but.It's very annoying to see these idiots talk about film..I think their should be a show (hour long) that focuses on film critique discussions, ETC,.Yadda Yadda..but this show is awful ..Its one of those things that I watch just to amuse myself at how stupid people are ..
STUPID OBSERVATION # 1.0
.. . when one of their pop singing looking vj's creep into the theatre all "James Bond" style and sneak up on an unsuspectiong "mtv generation" style audience member and say.."dude ...so what do ya think so far..?". the filmwatcher responds.."Man this is so dope!!".....or the vj's may say.."damn!.. j-lo be looking hot when she puchned that guy.." and the filmwatcher responds.."Yeah!..she's SUCH a great actresss"..that is freaking stupid and anoying for ANYONE who likes cinema....
STUPID OBSERVATION # 2.0
..also, ..at the end of the show after the "exclusive sneak speak" of the film they round out certian audience members and then we are fortunate enough to get their "critique" on the film VIA "slapping velcro played out high school slang words" to describe the film in question....and when slappin down these words they get all excited like their acting in the WWE (for example)..::chugs 7 beers and crushes all the 7 cans on forhead::.."Man 2 fast was so Ill!!!!!!..I can't believe all the tight menuivers Paul was Pull'n off!! I give this film a "holla b/c I wana holla at all them ladies in da film!!!!!!!!"".
that 's pretty much as close as its gonna get to hearing the real thing if any of you guys watch that show......Why hot ticket is a big ball of 100% wisconsin cheese (what's up w/leonard maltin's wierd smile throughout the show?) its' still has nothing on that MTV garbage..but i guesss w/MTV I should expect this so I apologize for rambling..........on
my favorite movie critic is stephanie zacharek from salon.com and new york times. her prose is beautiful and she provides a lot of insights into the films she reviews. i especially love her review of the magnolia dvd:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/author-228/reviews.php?rid=124315&cats=1%2C+2%2C+3%2C+4%2C+5%2C+7%2C+8%2C+29%2C+12%2C+13%2C+14%2C+16%2C+17%2C+18%2C+19%2C+20%2C+21%2C+22%2C+24%2C+23%2C+26%2C+27&genreid=&switches=&letter=&sortby=&page=4
she's one of the few major critics who i feel really understands pta and his appeal to fans.
www.slantmagazine.com. is pretty good too though the review of punch-drunk love is a little harsh. check out www.matineemag.com. though it's now defunct, their archive posseses some great reviews. jason clark, chuck rudolph, and jeremiah kipp are all great critics. it was chuck rudolph's insightful, intriguing review of magnolia that compelled me to see it.
All very well and good, but I can't seem to access her review of Magnolia. It doesn't appear to be there.
yes, sorry about that. go to the archive for salon and search for paul thomas anderson. it should come up...with a little searching.
i am offended. that PDL review was way harsh and dumb.
Stephanie Zacharek trivia: She is married to Charles Taylor, Salon's "other" movie reviewer. For understandable reasons, they don't make a big deal out of it and it's never directly mentioned on Salon, but I wonder what the story is, if they met there or what?
Somewhere along the way (and I don't know when), film critics have forgotten what a film critic is suppose to be. EVERYTHING has become about ego (particularly Ebert). A film critic's job is not to just sit through movies or just to write a bunch of reviews, but they're suppose to help the audience understand the great movies better. Ebert once said "I believe that if a person sees a great movie it will change them as film goers". That's not a true statement at all. Most people who see a great movie will not recognize the fact that it's a great movie. They'll sit through it and then go see another piece of junk. People here on this board recognize great movies when they see them, but most ordinary citizens do not. Film critics have to get on their level and make them understand. Instead, they just use a bunch of fancy words to make themselves look so educated. But they're not helping things...period.
the only good critic is a dead critic
Quote from: SydneySomewhere along the way (and I don't know when), film critics have forgotten what a film critic is suppose to be. EVERYTHING has become about ego (particularly Ebert). A film critic's job is not to just sit through movies or just to write a bunch of reviews, but they're suppose to help the audience understand the great movies better. Ebert once said "I believe that if a person sees a great movie it will change them as film goers". That's not a true statement at all. Most people who see a great movie will not recognize the fact that it's a great movie. They'll sit through it and then go see another piece of junk. People here on this board recognize great movies when they see them, but most ordinary citizens do not. Film critics have to get on their level and make them understand. Instead, they just use a bunch of fancy words to make themselves look so educated. But they're not helping things...period.
i disagree. critics shouldn't be slaves to the people who read their reviews...the objective isn't to "help out" the reader. the idea is to provide insight into a film. if that insight happens to help out, then great. but critics whose sole purpose is to pander to their audience aren't real critics...they're what we call hacks.
Quote from: pookiethecatQuote from: SydneySomewhere along the way (and I don't know when), film critics have forgotten what a film critic is suppose to be. EVERYTHING has become about ego (particularly Ebert). A film critic's job is not to just sit through movies or just to write a bunch of reviews, but they're suppose to help the audience understand the great movies better. Ebert once said "I believe that if a person sees a great movie it will change them as film goers". That's not a true statement at all. Most people who see a great movie will not recognize the fact that it's a great movie. They'll sit through it and then go see another piece of junk. People here on this board recognize great movies when they see them, but most ordinary citizens do not. Film critics have to get on their level and make them understand. Instead, they just use a bunch of fancy words to make themselves look so educated. But they're not helping things...period.
i disagree. critics shouldn't be slaves to the people who read their reviews...the objective isn't to "help out" the reader. the idea is to provide insight into a film. if that insight happens to help out, then great. but critics whose sole purpose is to pander to their audience aren't real critics...they're what we call hacks.
Exactly. I think what really doesn't help things is for writers to cultivate laziness in themselves and encourage laziness in their readers. Writing should be ALIVE, expressive, searching, and in love with language. All great writing is. And I, like Pauline Kael, think criticism is an art form. Some of the greatest, most beautiful writing has been criticism.
Most self-styled "critics" (esp. newspaper and television) are merely reviewers who apparently haven't a single genuinely critical thought to share. It's sad to think that they actually might, but are stifling anything interesting they might have to say because they feel like their audience is too illiterate, lazy, or defensive to "get it."
I'm also wondering where Sydney gets this idea that Ebert practices use of fancy words above the logic of any average citizen. Ebert's a populist writer. Godardian has always called him a bad writer and I do agree with that. If Sydney wants some real writing, I suggest him get a load of Stanley Kauffmann or someone along that line. Now that's a writer.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm also wondering where Sydney gets this idea that Ebert practices use of fancy words above the logic of any average citizen. Ebert's a populist writer. Godardian has always called him a bad writer and I do agree with that. If Sydney wants some real writing, I suggest him get a load of Stanley Kauffmann or someone along that line. Now that's a writer.
~rougerum
I often get the feeling that Ebert is much smarter than he lets on. How could he not be, having seen all the films he's seen, and pondering them for a living? But he tries too hard to be "the common man." His actual writing is usually, I feel, fairly dull, even though I often agree with his gist. I think Kael thought of herself as having populist leanings, too, but her writing was alive and passionate; she, however, didn't cower from her own very extensive knowledge and insight. She let it shine.
If Ebert is some sort of elitist on your scale, your scale stops way too short.
I do intend to read Stanley Kauffmann at some point very soon, GT.
have ya'll read david thomson's new biographical dictionary of film? that shit is mind-fucking-boggling. i need cliff notes to his entries.
I agree that a critic is suppose to give insight into a movie, but there is more to it than that. Almost every ordinary citizen I have talked to has said that film critics are nothing more than snobs or stuck-up. Now, I disagree with that but a lot of people feel that way because critics seem to have become addicted to their ego. Think of it this way, if critics were really making people understand movies better and people thought about them in a different way...then Punch Drunk Love would have been number 1 at the box office instead of something like Jackass the movie. I rest my case.
Godardian reading Stanley Kauffmann? Great idea because he is the symbol of movies for me but also ironic, considering Kauffmann's harsh criticisms of a lot of Godard's films. He dismissed My Life to Live as pretensious.
Even if you disagree with him (as I do sometimes), I still think he is the most thought provoking of critics and hardest to disagree with. He still reviews films ever week and they can be found at www.tnr.com Its just after a week, the review can only be seen through pay subscription only. Most recent reviews and general movie recommendations usually are free.
~rougerum
Quote from: pookiethecathave ya'll read david thomson's new biographical dictionary of film? that shit is mind-fucking-boggling. i need cliff notes to his entries.
I just got that book a few weeks ago! It's pretty juicy. I love looking up all my favorites to see how they rate in books like these. Definitely worth having on your reference shelf!
Quote from: SydneyI agree that a critic is suppose to give insight into a movie, but there is more to it than that. Almost every ordinary citizen I have talked to has said that film critics are nothing more than snobs or stuck-up. Now, I disagree with that but a lot of people feel that way because critics seem to have become addicted to their ego. Think of it this way, if critics were really making people understand movies better and people thought about them in a different way...then Punch Drunk Love would have been number 1 at the box office instead of something like Jackass the movie. I rest my case.
Woah woah, now you're getting into much larger arguments that goes beyond this one, the current state of film as it is and how art films are so secluded in the general public. The film critic Stanley Kauffmann argues that ultimately, film schools destroyed general American appetite for better films. His reasoning is that film schools made films into another school subject for kids in college and took it away from the film fans as something closer to private property. He also cites lack of quality films from abroad to continue sparking interest and money only getting bigger in film production to serve general entertainment and how that ate up breathing room for smaller films to get any big notice. The film studios were dishing out more money for each film to just advertise. I always thought him speaking of how films schools helped destroyed it the most interesting because I actually agree. Appreciation of film is now jostled as school work like any other lame subject and how exciting is it when something so special and fun for people is made into work on just to appreciate as a fan? He argues films in the 70s and on started to lose the youth intelligence to rock n roll.
But to get to the argument at hand, what you said with people's reactions to critics now is much deeper than the answers you are giving.
~rougerum
Quote from: SydneyI agree that a critic is suppose to give insight into a movie, but there is more to it than that. Almost every ordinary citizen I have talked to has said that film critics are nothing more than snobs or stuck-up. Now, I disagree with that but a lot of people feel that way because critics seem to have become addicted to their ego. Think of it this way, if critics were really making people understand movies better and people thought about them in a different way...then Punch Drunk Love would have been number 1 at the box office instead of something like Jackass the movie. I rest my case.
What comes into play here is that too many people are not discerning enough to know that a film can be a creative success without being a financial one. Sure, it would've been nice for
Punch-Drunk Love to have been number one, but it is frankly a film better enjoyed if you really love film. And really loving film is something that too many moviegoers don't understand.
Most good film critics don't think their opinion is inherently more valuable than anyone else's. The really, truly good ones are trying to discover and articulate their own feelings about the film(s) they've seen, and hope that someone else gets some enjoyment/enlightenment out of that expression. Reading a really good film review is like being part of a lively conversation, one between someone who loves film and the film they're engaging with.
Usually, when people have complexes about other people being "snobs" or "stuck-up," they're really just insecure and preventing themselves from learning something. The obvious attitude behind it is, "That person seems to know more than I do about something and isn't ashamed to show it and utilize their capacities to the utmost. They must be a snob!" Me, when someone seems to have something interesting to say and an interesting way to say it, that's when I know it's time to shut up and do some listening/attention-paying.
David Thomson's opinions can be soo...caustic. The more he lambasts people the more I want to read on.
I agree with Godardian and Gold Trumpet. Though I have to admit, this conversation is kind of confusing me. I'm having trouble making sense of Sydney's argument.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetGodardian reading Stanley Kauffmann? Great idea because he is the symbol of movies for me but also ironic, considering Kauffmann's harsh criticisms of a lot of Godard's films. He dismissed My Life to Live as pretensious.
Too bad that Kauffmann's writing is the very definition of pretention, so that actually nullifies any "pretentious" catcalls he can make. :wink:
i think the overuse of the word "pretentious" is pretentious.
Quote from: pookiethecati think the overuse of the word "pretentious" is pretentious.
hehe, I think your right!
Quote from: pookiethecatDavid Thomson's opinions can be soo...caustic. The more he lambasts people the more I want to read on.
I agree with Godardian and Gold Trumpet. Though I have to admit, this conversation is kind of confusing me. I'm having trouble making sense of Sydney's argument.
Speaking of David Thomson, I finally watched my DVD of
Victim today. A fine film- check out my avatar- and the DVD includes a nice liner essay by Thomson.
cool, as always.